Loved the reactions of the Supreme Court Accomplices at the State of the Union. Did they really believe Trump wouldn't turn on them the instant they didn't toe his line? Hopefully this little display of his will make it less likely for them to rule in his favor in the future.
The US Supreme Court and its decisions
- Thread starter Patch
- Start date
I suppose this may fall under the interstate commerce clause, which is undoubtedly the argument being used by said oil companies:
AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
A lower court previously said that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
www.theverge.com
The SC is actually letting the "You can't copyright LLM-created things" decision stand.
Well, I mean: it's all derivative of stolen art from actual people anyway, so... good. Finally a good decision from that lot.
You know... you might get that eventually. Without the ability to copyright it; the companies using AI for advertising will more than likely stop using it. No point if anyone can outright steal a successful ad campaign without repercussion.
Which would end with the AI companies losing a lot of money... If it's not profitable, no one would care.
Which would end with the AI companies losing a lot of money... If it's not profitable, no one would care.
Can they interpret copyright that broadly without also making a precedent that would be used to crack down on fan works?
Yes, if they argue that self-expression is a basic right of all humans, and that the purpose of fair use doctrine and free speech in general is to facilitate that. Since machines are not humans, they are entitled to neither free speech nor any of the protections of fair use.
From what I've heard from someone who has worked with ad companies in the past, it'll still get used at least somewhat, even if some of the larger companies back off, regardless of copyright. They'll basically be using it the same way Clip Art was used back in the day, just because the time savings for a one-off image are THAT BIG for them.
From the anecdote that was given, something that seems a simple image could take several hours to assemble the exact image you want by editing if you couldn't find it, and for a similar image these days they can spend maybe 1 hour throwing sentences at the plagiarism machine to get something "good enough" and still come out ahead, for a single image that would only be glanced by their customers, maybe used once and never used again.
The doc was actually independently sapient: current LLM's are more akin to... politicians than people.
I've seen someone ask Grok what fair solutions it would propose here if it were a politician. It came up with three options.
1: Royalties for artists whose works were used in training sets. This would be logistically difficult but there's a case to be made that companies should *already* have to do this.
2: Drastically shorten the copyright protection period and expand codified fair usage rights. If they get to use our stuff, we get to use their stuff.
3: Just get rid of copyright altogether. This would harm new artists but the existing system hasn't been purely good for new artists either.
Even AI agrees that AI art as it stands is inherently violating someone else's copyright.
1: Royalties for artists whose works were used in training sets. This would be logistically difficult but there's a case to be made that companies should *already* have to do this.
2: Drastically shorten the copyright protection period and expand codified fair usage rights. If they get to use our stuff, we get to use their stuff.
3: Just get rid of copyright altogether. This would harm new artists but the existing system hasn't been purely good for new artists either.
Even AI agrees that AI art as it stands is inherently violating someone else's copyright.
Sean Casten (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image 1. Criticism of SCOTUS isn’t limited to Trump and isn’t coming in a vacuum. Public trust in SCOTUS has been collapsing as a direct result of SCOTUS’ actions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/653897/americans-pass-judgment-courts.aspx
mastodon.social
I'd say the government in general is giving the court a run for its money in loss of confidence. Both are at the lowest they've been since 2006 according to this. That downswing timing is interesting too - the Court one is obvious, the government one I'd guess started due to COVID responses. Also the two mostly seem to correlate apart from that dip in Government around 2007.
I'm just eyeing Financial institutions. Trust me, that should not be going up.
Perhaps the fact that the chart ENDS at 2024 (and, thus, before the most recent US federal election... possibly even much earlier in the year, depending on how that's calculated) is significant.
I mean, seriously, I'd expect those lines to be even LOWER now.
Last edited:
Supreme Court skeptical of allowing states to count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day • Florida Phoenix
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Monday appeared skeptical of the validity of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, in a case that could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of voters during the upcoming midterm elections.
floridaphoenix.com
Remember that legal battle over whether Cox could be held responsible for piracy? Looks like Cox won.
www.theverge.com
Paywall-free: https://archive.is/YdweM
Cox Communications not liable for pirated music, Supreme Court rules
The ruling says Cox didn’t provide a service dedicated to copyright infringement; it ‘simply provided internet access.’
www.theverge.com
Paywall-free: https://archive.is/YdweM
Rare unmitigated win. It wasn't that surprising given how the questioning went, but great to see.
As an aside, I'd like to buy the writer of that article a coffee for actually linking the opinion.
As an aside, I'd like to buy the writer of that article a coffee for actually linking the opinion.